Thursday, February 05, 2004

Biblical Overview: The Blessed Virgin Mary

By Dave Armstrong (2-5-04)

I. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS

1. MOTHER OF GOD

Mary is the true physical mother of Jesus Christ, Who is truly God; hence Mary is the Mother of God. The doctrine was defined at the Council of Ephesus in 431 in order to counter Nestorius, who thought that Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ's human nature only. The Catholic Church responded by stating that persons, and not natures, are conceived and born, and that Jesus Christ was a Divine Person, and God-Man. The purpose of this doctrine was, and is, to safeguard the Divinity of Jesus Christ. As such, it is Christ-centered, not Mary-centered. In no way does it imply that Mary is greater than, or prior to, God.

2. IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

The most holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Redeemer of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.

(Formal Definition of Pope Pius IX, 1854)

3. ASSUMPTION

Mary, the immaculate perpetually Virgin Mother of God, after the completion of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.

(Formal Definition of Pope Pius XII, 1950)

4. PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ, who had no siblings, as many Protestants hold, although all orthodox Protestants maintain belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ.

5. MEDIATRIX

Mary freely cooperated with God in consenting to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, thus, indirectly, she shares as a channel of grace to mankind. Mary also constantly intercedes on our behalf, thus participating in graces entirely originating from, and conferred by, God, by virtue of the merit of Jesus Christ. God willed for Mary to be a channel of blessing in this fashion, in a subordinate and indirect way, without taking away any of the prerogatives of the Creator.

6. SPIRITUAL MOTHER

Jesus Christ gave to John -- and by implication, all Christians -- His Mother, to be our Spiritual Mother (Jn 19:26-27; cf. Rev 12:1-2,5,17). Thus, we can ask for her prayers on our behalf, which have great efficacy due to her exalted holiness (Jas 5:16) and closeness to our Lord Jesus Christ.

7.

An infinite distance separates [Mary] from the Infinite, from Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And she has no grace, no virtue, no privilege, which she does not owe to the divine Mediator. Both in her natural and in her supernatural being, she is wholly the gift of God. There is nothing, therefore, so misguided and so preposterous as to decry the Mother of God as some 'mother goddess,' and to talk of Catholicism having a polytheistic character. There is but one God, the Triune God, and every created thing lives in awe of His mystery.

(Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 1924)

8.

There is only one person in all humanity of whom God has one picture, and in whom there is a perfect conformity between what He wanted her to be and what she is, and that is His Own Mother. The model and the copy are perfect. As Eden was the Paradise of Creation, Mary is the Paradise of the Incarnation. The closer one gets to the fire, the greater the heat; the closer one is to God, the greater the purity. But since no one was ever closer to God than the woman whose human portals He threw open to walk this earth, then no one could have been more pure than she. We do not start with Mary. We start with Christ. The less we think of Him, the less we think of her; the more we think of Him, the more we think of her; the more we adore His Divinity, the more we venerate her Motherhood. It may be objected: 'Our Lord is enough for me. I have no need of her.' But He needed her, whether we do or not. God, Who made the sun, also made the moon. The moon does not take away from the brilliance of the sun. All its light is reflected from the sun. The Blessed Mother reflects her Divine Son; without Him, she is nothing. With Him, she is the Mother of Men.

(Archbishop Fulton Sheen, The World's First Love, 1952)

II. MARY THE "MOTHER OF GOD" ("THEOTOKOS")

1. Mary is called "Mother of the Lord" (Lk 1:43) and the "Mother of Jesus" (Jn 2:1), thus she is the Mother of God, since Jesus Christ is true God, the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity (see also Is 7:14; Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35; Gal 4:4).

2. Our own mothers did not have any part in the production of our souls, which was the work of God alone. Yet we would not say she was the "mother of my body," and not "my mother." Likewise, Mary, under the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, communicated, as mothers do, to the Lord Jesus Christ a human nature of the same substance as her own. From this unfathomable privilege flows her surpassing dignity and excellence. If Mary were not a truly human mother, then Jesus Christ is not a truly human Person, and both the Incarnation and Jesus Christ's Human Nature would be in peril.

3. The Founders of Protestantism held firmly to this title for Mary, on the same grounds (e.g., Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Bullinger).

The Gk. word rendered "highly favoured" here (KJV) and in many translations, is "kecharitomene." Catholic Bibles usually translate it "full of grace," which is permissible, and not merely a biased position. E.g., the Protestant Amplified Bible mentions in a note that "endued with grace" is the "literal translation." W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words, a standard Protestant reference, states that the word means "to make graceful or gracious . . . grace implies more than favour; grace is a free gift, favour may be deserved or gained."

If this be true, the Catholic rendering makes more clear the Catholic position that Mary's Immaculate Conception is entirely unmerited on her part, a sheer act of mercy and grace performed solely by God. "Favour" may imply otherwise. "Kecharitomene," in any event, is derived from the root "charis," whose literal meaning is "grace" (it is translated as "grace" 129 out of 150 times in the KJV). The angel is here, in effect, giving Mary a new name ("full of grace"), as if he were addressing Abraham as "full of faith," or Solomon "full of wisdom" (characteristics which typified them). Throughout the Bible, names were indicative of one's character and essence, all the more so if God renamed a person.

2. Catholicism needs only to show the harmony of a doctrine with the Bible. It is not our view that every doctrine of Christianity must appear whole, explicit, and often, in the pages of the Bible. We have also Sacred Tradition, Church Authority, and an acceptance of the development of understanding of essentially unchanging Christian truths. A belief implicitly biblical is not "anti-biblical" or "unbiblical," as many Protestants would have us believe. In fact, many Protestant doctrines are either not found in the Bible at all (e.g., "Bible alone" and the Canon of the Bible), are based on only a very few direct passages (e.g., the Virgin Birth), or are indirectly deduced from many implicit passages (e.g., the Trinity, the two natures of Jesus Christ). Likewise with the Immaculate Conception and other Catholic Marian beliefs.

3. Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

This verse explicitly establishes a link between Mary as bearer of the New Covenant and the Ark of the Old Covenant. The Gk. word for "overshadow" ("episkiasei") was used of the bright cloud at the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (Mt 17:5; Lk 9:34) and is reminiscent of the Shekinah of the OT, which represented God's Presence (Ex 24:15-16; 40:34-8; 1 Ki 8:4-11). Mary became like the Holy of Holies in the Temple, where God dwelt. God gave extremely detailed instructions on constructing the ark, since it was to contain His Law (Ex 25-30 and 35-40). Mary had to be that much more holy, since she was to carry the Word of God in the flesh (Job 14:4). Further parallelism between Mary and the Ark is indicated in comparing Lk 1:43 with 2 Sam 6:9, Lk 1:44 with 2 Sam 6:14-16, and Lk 1:39-45,56 with 2 Sam 6:10-12.

Mary had to be sinless in order to be in such close proximity to God Himself. The whole Bible teaches this (e.g., Ex 3:5; Deut 23:14). God's Presence imparts and requires holiness (1 Cor 3:13-17; 1 Jn 3:3-9). The Jewish high priest entered the Holy of Holies (where the Ark and God's Special Presence were) only once a year, under threat of death if God's instructions were violated (Lev 16:2-4,13). The Ark itself was so holy that only a few were allowed to touch it (Num 4:15; 2 Sam 6:2-7). Thus, Mary, due to her ineffable physical and spiritual relationship with God the Son, the Holy Spirit (as "Spouse"), and God the Father (as "Daughter of Zion"), necessarily had to be granted the grace of sinlessness from conception, just as we all will be cleansed utterly in order to be present with God in heaven (Rev 21:27). Seen in this light, the Immaculate Conception, though still technically a deduction from the Bible, is a very biblical doctrine indeed.

4. Other biblical parallels to the Immaculate Conception exist. Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) and John the Baptist (Lk 1:15) were sanctified from the womb for the serious tasks to which God was calling them. The Apostles were endowed with many extraordinary gifts for their unique role in the history of Christianity (Acts 2; 2 Cor 3:5-6). Adam and Eve, before the Fall, were immaculate and without sin. They were brought forth from an immaculate earth, just as Jesus came forth from the immaculate Mary. Mary is the "second Eve" just as Jesus was the "second Adam" (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22,45). Mary, by her profound obedience (Lk 1:38), "undoes" Eve's disobedience in the Garden. The angels were created sinless and have remained so (except for the rebel demons). Saints in heaven are completely holy (Rev 14:5). God saved Mary by preserving her from the "pit" of sin, while He pulls the rest of us out of it. This is why God is every bit as much her Savior as He is ours (LK 1:47).

The Immaculate Mary prefigures the perfected Church (Eph 5:25-27). Catholics venerate in Mary no more than the glory promised by God to every creature who stays the course. The doctrine of Original Sin is more difficult to believe than Mary's Immaculate Conception. It is no difficulty to believe that God can unite a soul to flesh without sin. It is much harder to accept the notion that millions of souls are conceived with it.

5. It is abundantly strange that so many Protestants see Catholic Marian beliefs as idolatrous, when in fact, the Immaculate Conception is nothing if not a case where God saves absolutely independently of human effort or "works," without even the possibility of them - pure grace and nothing but grace. Protestants hold that this is what saves everyone who attains salvation. So how can Catholics be chided for applying this notion of unmerited grace to Mary? The only difference is that Catholics believe that God's applied grace obliterates sin, whereas in Protestantism, it merely "covers it up." This notion, however, is unbiblical, and was originated, by and large, by Martin Luther.

6.

He who held back the waves of that Jordan, that the ark of the Old Testament might pass untouched and honored through its bed, could hold back the wave of Adam, lest it overflow the ark of the New Testament beneath its defiling floods. For He, who could have limited Adam's sin unto himself, can ward off that sin from Mary. And what He could, that He willed to do. For why should He not have willed it?

(Bishop William Ullathorne, The Immaculate Conception, 1855)

IV. MARY'S ASSUMPTION

1. The Assumption is not an arbitrary presumption; it follows from Mary's sinlessness. Since bodily decay results from sin (Ps 16:10), the absence of sin would allow for instant bodily resurrection at death. Mary, since she was sinless, was preserved from the three-fold curse of sin (Gen 3:16-19), as well as from a return to dust. The Assumption is not the Ascension. Mary is taken to heaven by the power of God, not her own power, as with Jesus. The Church Fathers refer to such passages as Ps 132:8 as indications of the Assumption. Biblical parallels very similar to the Assumption exist:

Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." {Cf. Gen 5:24}

2 Kings 2:1,11 ". . . the Lord would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind . . . And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, {there appeared} a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

Enoch and Elijah, according to Protestant commentaries, were taken bodily to heaven, exactly what the doctrine of the Assumption maintains with regard to Mary. Furthermore, OT saints were immediately resurrected after Jesus' Resurrection (Mt 27:52-3); Christians at the Second Coming are resurrected and meet Jesus in the air (along with the dead saints) -- some Protestants regard this as the "Rapture" (1 Thess 4:15-17). Lastly, Paul describes an experience whereby he was "caught up to the third heaven," possibly "in the body." Such evidence does not establish the Assumption in and of itself, but it does make such a notion plausible and not at all unbiblical, as is so often charged by Protestants.

Again, Catholicism does not believe in sola Scriptura, or "Scripture Alone" as the ultimate source of Christian truth. This is the Protestant principle of authority, curiously not found in the Bible, which points to a Tradition larger than itself (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2).

2. Mary is again here a sign and type for every Christian. She anticipates our eventual bodily resurrection with her Assumption, just as she prefigures our redemption from sin by her Immaculate Conception.

3.

Can we suppose that Abraham, or David, or Isaiah, or Ezekiel, should have been thus favoured [referring to the mass resurrection of Mt 27:52-3], and not God's own Mother? Was she not nearer to Him than the greatest of the Saints before her? Therefore we confidently say that our Lord, having preserved her from sin and the consequences of sin by His Passion, lost no time in pouring out the full merits of that Passion upon her body as well as her soul.

(Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, Meditations and Devotions, 1893)

V. MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY

1. Many Protestants assume that whenever they read of Jesus' "brothers," this is referring to His siblings, other sons and daughters of Mary. But it is not that simple. "Adelphos," the Gk. word for "brother" in the NT, has multiple meanings (like the English word), and they all appear frequently in Scripture. In addition to sibling, it can also denote (1) those of the same nationality (Acts 3:17; Rom 9:3); (2) any man, or neighbor (Mt 5:22; Lk 10:29); (3) persons with like interests (Mt 5:47); (4) distant descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5); (5) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (6) mankind (Mt 25:40; Heb 2:17); (7) the disciples (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:17); (8) all believers (Mt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10). Clearly, then, this issue is not at all settled by the mere word "brother"/"adelphos" in the Bible, and a more in-depth examination of the biblical data will be necessary.

2. "Brethren": Biblical Exegesis

A. By comparing Gen 14:14 with 11:26-7, we find that Lot, called Abraham's "brother", is actually his nephew.

B. Jacob is called the "brother" of his Uncle Laban (Gen 29:10,15).

C. Cis and Eleazar are described as "brethren", whereas they are literally cousins (1 Chron 23:21-2).

H. By comparing Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40; and Jn 19:25, we find that James and Joseph - mentioned in Mt 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' "brethren" - are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Mary's "adelphe" in Jn 19:25 (two Marys in one family?! - thus even this usage apparently means "cousins" or more distant relative). Mt 13:55 and Mk 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all "adelphoi". Since we know that James and Joseph are not Jesus' blood brothers, it is likely that all these other "brethren" are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above.

J. Some Protestant commentators maintain that Mt 1:24-5 ("Joseph knew her not till . . .") implies that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. This does not follow, since "till" does not necessarily imply a change of behavior after the time to which it refers (cf. similar instances in 1 Sam 15:35; 2 Sam 6:23; Mt 12:20; Rom 8:22; 1 Tim 4:13; 6:14; Rev 2:25).

K. Likewise, "firstborn" (Mt 1:25) need not imply later children. A mother's first child is her "firstborn" regardless if any follow or not (Ex 13:2). Also, in the Bible, "firstborn" often means "preeminent," and even applies to those who are not literally the first child (Jer 31:9), or, metaphorically, to groups (Ex 4:22; Heb 12:23). Thus, "firstborn" in Mt 1:25 actually is more of an indication that Jesus is Mary's only child, than that there were others. This position is held by many evangelical Protestant scholars on these criteria, rather than Catholic dogmatic grounds.

L. Jesus committed his Mother to the care of John from the Cross (Jn 19:26-7). This is improbable if He had full brothers of His own then alive. Again, many Protestant interpreters agree.

M. Who would want to have God for a brother anyway?! Talk about sibling rivalry and an inferiority complex! The whole notion, if pondered, seems more and more improper and unbecoming - out and out implausible, even apart from the biblical data.

3. Early Christian Tradition was unanimous in holding to Mary's Perpetual Virginity. It was first doubted, as far as we know, by one Helvidius, who tangled with St. Jerome in 380, but by few others until recent times. All the Protestant Founders firmly held the belief, as did later notable Protestants such as John Wesley, and many more to this day, on biblical grounds alone.

VI. MARY AS INTERCESSOR, MEDIATRIX, AND SPIRITUAL MOTHER

1. John 19:26-27 "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! (27) Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own {home}."

Many scholars, and not just Catholic ones (e.g., Lightfoot) suggest that in a text to which John attaches such importance more is involved than simply asking the disciple to take care of Mary. Jesus addresses his Mother first. In Gen 3:20 we find that "Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." Likewise, John, who represented Christians, was to consider Mary his "mother," since she, as the Second Eve, is a type of the Church, and the Spiritual Mother of all Christians. To take it further, the Church is also a "mother" of Christians (Gal 4:26), since it nurtures and guides them into the fullness of the faith. Jesus' phrase evokes the OT covenant formula of 2 Sam 7:14: "I will be his father, and he shall be my son . . ."

2. Revelation 12:1, 5, 17 "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars . . . And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and {to} his throne . . . And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Cf. Ps 2:9)

This woman is the mother of the Messiah, Jesus Christ (12:5) and also of Christian disciples (12:17); possibly an extension of the Mary/Eve symbolism of Jn 19:26-7 (the same John may have written both). She is in conflict with a dragon who in 12:9 is identified with the ancient serpent of Genesis (cf. Gen 3:15 which also has Marian import). It would not be unusual for this passage to have a double symbolic interpretation, referring both to Mary and the Church (of which Mary is a type, anyway).

3. Mary as a Type of the Church: Just before the scene in heaven described in Rev 12 (the immediate preceding verse: 11:19), the ark of the covenant appears in the "temple of God." This is no coincidence, given the Mary/Ark parallelism as examined previously (it should be noted that the original Bible had no verses or chapters either). Mary symbolizes both the whole people of Israel and the Church. As Israel produces the Messiah, so Mary bears Him and gives birth to the Church in that same act. She is the first Christian, and the Mother of believers, in the sense that Abraham is called the Father of believers. Abraham inaugurated the Old Covenant by an act of faith. Mary does the same at the dawn of the New Covenant.

Moreover, Mary appears to fulfill the typology of the "Daughter of Zion", who is the personification of Israel (see Lam 1:15*; 2:13; Is 62:5*; 62:11; Jer 4:31; Micah 4:10; Zech 2:10; 9:9; Zeph 3:14; cf. Rev 21:2-3 / * = described as a "virgin"). In Zeph 3:14 and Zech 9:9, the Gk. word "chaire" ("hail") appears in the Septuagint (the Gk. translation of the OT in the 3rd century B.C.). This is the same word as that in Lk 1:28 ("Hail, full of grace . . ."). "Chaire" is used in prophecies regarding the messianic deliverance of the Jews.

4. Mary as Mediatrix:

There is but one mediator (1 Tim 2:5-6). But Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but in the disposition of God. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Jesus Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. It does not hinder in any way the immediate union of the faithful with Jesus Christ but on the contrary fosters it. The Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, benefactress, and Mediatrix. This, however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Jesus Christ the one Mediator . . . The unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.

Mary cooperates in the application of the grace of Redemption to man. She participates in the distribution of grace by her maternal intercession which is far inferior in efficacy to that of the intercessory prayer of Jesus Christ, the High Priest, but surpasses far the intercessory prayer of all the other saints . . . [We are not] obliged to beg for all graces through Mary, nor [is] Mary's intercession intrinsically necessary for the application of the grace, but according to God's positive ordinance, the redemptive grace of Jesus Christ is conferred [with] the intercessory cooperation of Mary.

(Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)

God often involves Christians in secondary roles in which He is preeminent. He is the Creator, yet he calls us to be procreators as parents. Jesus is the Shepherd (Jn 10:11-16; 1 Pet 5:4), yet he delegates Peter as a shepherd (Jn 21:15-17) and others in lesser capacities (Eph 4:11). Jesus is High Priest, yet Christians are called to share in Jesus' priesthood (1 Pet 2:5-9; Rev 1:6; 20:6). Jesus is the supreme Judge, but Christians will be judges in heaven (Mt 19:28; Lk 22:30; 1 Cor 6:2-3; Rev 20:4). He is the sovereign King, but we will reign with him (Matt 19:23; Rev 3:21; 5:10). Jesus forgives our sins, but we are vessels of that forgiveness as well (Mt 18:18; Jn 20:23; Jas 5:14-15). Similarly, Mary can be a "mini-mediator" of God's graces, just as we all are, to a lesser extent, when we pray for each other. The role of "Mediatrix" is not a blasphemous Christ-usurping function, as many Protestants fear, but, like all other Marian doctrines, eminently Christ-centered and biblical.

5. Marian Apparitions: These are what are called private revelations, as distinct from the public revelation of the Bible and Christian Tradition. The Catholic Church doesn't require anyone to accept the validity of any particular apparition. In the most widely accepted apparitions, such as Lourdes and Fatima, the utterances of Mary are always Christ-centered, and emphasize prayer, repentance, and conversion, just as the teaching or evangelization of any Christian on earth might stress. Furthermore, an apparition by a figure other than Jesus is not unthinkable by any means. Angels appear to men throughout Scripture, giving messages. Moses and Elijah returned to earth on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mt 17:1-3).

The two "witnesses" of Revelation 11:3-13 are saints come to life (possibly also Moses and Elijah, or Enoch and Elijah). The prophet Samuel appears to Saul (1 Sam 28:7-20), and many OT saints arose in Jerusalem after the Resurrection of Jesus (Mt 27:50-53). In the "Apocrypha" (accepted as Scripture by all Christians until the Protestant Revolt), Jeremiah returns to earth (2 Maccabees 15:13-16).

Any excesses which have occurred among Catholic laypeople in the area of Mariology are regrettable, but these are constantly warned against in the official documents of the Catholic Church (such as Vatican II). Abuses and corruptions must not cause a fair inquirer to reject a position, as this is illogical (an instance of "throwing the baby out with the bath water"). One must examine the actual theological positions of a group and judge accordingly. The same holds true for the sects of Protestantism, where various abuses are by no means less prevalent.

5 comments:

I confess I really, really want to become a Catholic - but the only thing that is keeping away right now is the various dogmas on Mary (immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, and assumption).

I can accept the possibility (but not the theological necessity) of Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption. But Particularly problematic for me is "Perpetual virginity"

I'm not in the "Sola Scriptura" camp, and I accept that the church logically preceeds scripture -- however, it seems to me the church authority has not only gone beyond Scripture in this regard, but even seems to over-extend the very plain reading, and as well as understanding of Jewish culture in regard to marriage and consummation.

At most, I believe in the "Limited Perpetual Virginity" (if there can be such a thing!): Virgin before, during, and maybe a few months after Jesus was born.

Scripture reference:

Matthew 1:18 "18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,c because he will save his people from their sins.”

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”d—which means, “God with us.”

24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

This Clearly implies they "came together" at some future point, and is certainly consistent with the whole idea of marriage itself. And notice that God does NOT command Joseph to remain celebate, but clearly commands him to take Mary as his wife. Did God really intend for them to NEVER consummate their marriage?

Secondly:

Matthew 13:55-57"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him."

I'm just not persuaded by attempts to stretch the meaning of "brothers" (or "sisters") to imply a distant relationship (like cousins, etc.). While it's true that the term "brothers" is used broadly in various other places in Scripture, it's not at all clear that "brothers" means anything OTHER than what it clearly implies here -- especially when the terms "brothers", "sisters" and "mother" title is included here.

Finally, there doesn't seem to be any mention of the concept of perpetual virginity until the 4th century. I do NOT find anything, for example in the writings of Polycarb, Barnabas, Ignatius, etc.

Is it at all possible to be a committed Catholic without accepting these specific dogmas of Mary? I can only imagine the droves of Christians who would readily embrace Catholicism if it weren't for these sticky points.

This doctrine is a de fide (infallible and non-optional) doctrine of the Church and not optional. The belief has been the dogma of not only Catholicism, but also Orthodoxy and all of the original Protestant founders. I think you need to ask yourself why that is, if it seems so obviously false to you.

Isn't more likely to be the case that you are mistaken, rather than all of Christianity till 200 or so years ago when religious liberalism started eroding traditional beliefs?

Has it already been almost a whole year since I wrote this? Wow. Things have changed quite a bit. My difficulty right now is not so much in beleving the Marian doctrines -- but in trying to articulate and defend my beliefs to Protestant friends. I'm on my way to starting RCIA soon -- hopefully within the next few months. I've enjoyed reading your stuff here -- it has been very helpful.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

Dave is basically the reason why I am the knowledgeable and passionate Catholic I am today. When I first decided in college to learn more about my Catholic faith, I read all of the tracts at Catholic Answers ... but then I needed more. I needed to move beyond the basics. Dave was the only one who had what I needed. I poured over his various dialogues and debates and found the answers to even the most obscure questions. His work showed me that there really is an answer to every conceivable question of and objection to the Catholic faith. That was a revelation for me, and it is one I will never forget. My own apologetical style (giving point-by-point rebuttals, relying heavily on Scripture, and being as thorough as possible) is influenced very heavily by his, and to this day I continue to learn and grow a great deal through his work explaining and defending the Catholic faith.

--- Nicholas Hardesty (DRE and apologist, 28 May 2015)

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.

I know you spend countless hours writing about and defending the Church. There may not be any American apologist who puts in more labor than you. You've been a hard-working laborer in the vineyard for a long time.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

--- Richard Olsen (Evangelical Protestant), 26 November 2012.

Dave writes a powerful message out of deep conviction and careful study. I strongly recommend the reading of his books. While not all readers will find it possible to agree with all his conclusions, every reader will gain much insight from reading carefully a well-crafted view that may be different from their own.

--- Jerome Smith (Evangelical Protestant and editor of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge), 26 May 2015 on LinkedIn.

I think it's really inspirational, Dave, that you pursue your passion and calling in this way, understanding that it's financially difficult, but making it work anyway. You and I don't agree, but I have to respect the choice as opposed to being some sort of corporate sell out that may make decent money but lives without purpose. You can tell your grandkids what you did with your life, whereas some corporate VP will say that he helped drive a quarterly stock price up briefly and who cares? It's cool to see.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).